Weekly message from the American Anglican Council, 9/26

Via email from Bishop David Anderson of the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved,

There are a number of issues to look at this week. In the United States, the financial crisis continues to deepen, with concerns about jobs, homes, and savings being an increasing topic of conversation among ordinary folks. People are not of one mind as to what the solution is, but with the people feeling uncertain, churches and charitable organizations may feel the impact of this insecurity. Another area that individuals, churches and organizations are looking at is the security and strength of their personal bank accounts, and whether the US Government provides insurance for those accounts. Some people and organizations may be thinking they have more insurance for their bank accounts than they really do. Sitting down and talking with your banker about your situation might be a good thing to do fairly soon.

I would urge churches especially to look at their financial assets, talk to their banker, and see if they need to spread their accounts over two or more banks, so that each account is fully FDIC insured. It also calls to mind the fact that we ought not to put our trust in wealth, but in the one who saves us, blesses us, and provides for our needs.

On a happier note, support for Bishop Duncan is pouring in from around the world. Of course, The Episcopal Church doesn't much care whether the Anglican World disapproves of the way she handled the situation, she would say that the rest of the world was just ignorant of the facts as she has determined them, and if they were properly briefed, they would naturally agree with her. Six English bishops have said that they continue to regard Duncan as a bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion, and this is in addition to messages sent from all corners of the Communion.

Now the countdown is on to the Pittsburgh Diocesan Convention on October 4 - what will happen? Will Katharine Jefferts Schori attempt to intervene in the proceedings, or will she wait until the meeting is concluded to take any actions she may be planning? I suspect a great many would agree with the Rt. Rev. Colin Basley, who wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury calling for the immediate suspension of the Episcopal Church from any further participation in activities of the Anglican Communion, and calling for recognition of a new orthodox North American Anglican Province named Common Cause Partners Federation.

In many ways, the spiritual/ecclesiastical Anglican Communion meltdown is comparable to the financial meltdown in the US business world. In the latter, people bought sub-prime loans that were in effect bad paper, passed them on to others as if they were the real thing, trust was broken, and lies and deceit led to the economic ruination of many - and it isn't over yet! In the spiritual/ecclesiastical realm, church leaders in North America put together sub-prime, bogus spiritual truths, passed them on to others as if they were the real thing, persecuted those who raised the alarm, and as a result, trust has been broken, lives spiritually ruined, lies and deceit have caused many to leave their churches and reorganize in line with traditional Christian beliefs, and this is leading to the ecclesiastical ruination of many. The problem with spiritual ruination is that you might wind up in hell (yes, that place that TEC leaders don't believe in - or if it does exist, only a few of us will be in it!).

Meanwhile, the bishop of Washington DC, John Chane, has sued the Central Union Mission over their receipt of government funds to provide help for the homeless in the city. The Mission is a Christian organization, and as part of their feeding and assistance program, they require those participating to attend nightly religious services. Why is Bishop Chane attacking those who help the poor and homeless? Could it be because the Central Union Mission has provided space for an Anglican congregation associated with CANA (St. Brendan's in the City), to hold weekly Sunday evening services? The official reason that Bishop Chane claims is that government help to Central Union Mission is supposedly a violation of the US Constitution, since they require attendance at religious services.

In his opinion, the government isn't supposed to give money to churches: separation of church and state and all that, you know. However, Chane is the bishop of the Washington National Cathedral, and one wonders if the Cathedral hasn't accepted money from the government in one form or another, perhaps for major events held there, or for arts programs, or some other types of event. We know that the Washington DC police department has a police radio relay unit at the very top of the main tower of the Cathedral, and one wonders what other joint ventures the Cathedral has had with city or federal government. It may be that Bishop Chane hasn't had time to see the plank in his own eye.

Let us hope and pray that the ministry of Central Union Mission to the hungry and homeless and to those who need to find God in their lives, is able to continue unimpeded by any Chane-sponsored litigation.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

American Anglican Council weekly message, Sept. 5

Via email, from Bishop David Anderson of the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

In the United States, there is high interest in what will happen at the TEC House of Bishops meeting in late September. Will Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori heed advice being given her and leave Bishop Duncan alone for the time being, or will she proceed with her deposition plans for him? If she tries to depose him based on what he might do in the future, will she succeed or fail? Also, will the fact that the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy are all poised to take votes in their respective Diocesan Conventions with regard to separation from the Episcopal Church affect the proceedings?

Presiding Bishop Schori seems to have only one response to crises and that is to invoke the names of "Dewey, Sue'm & Howe" and commence litigation. We would suggest to her a great little book called "Getting to Yes" which might offer a few more options in conflict situations. If Bishop Schori opens up too much litigation all at once she may find herself in the same position that some nations have been - fighting in too many theatres of battle at once and unable to maintain adequate material and resources for each one. If she thinks she can use the trust fund reserve or the pension fund, she should look down the hall to the picture of Ellen Cooke, former TEC treasurer, who was sent to the "time out" box for just such actions.

North of the border in Canada, things are tense as the Anglican Church of Canada in the Diocese of New Westminster continues its assault on the orthodox Anglicans occupying their own property. The attacks by TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada on faithful Anglican believers continue unabated in courtrooms across the North American continent.

In the US, most of the churches that TEC is suing are still able to occupy their buildings and hold services while litigation is underway, whereas in Canada several churches have effectively been thrown out onto the curb, pending full trial. Cheryl Chang, a lawyer and legal director for the churches, reported that the judge "ordered us out at both churches and gave both churches to the diocese until full trial."

The reality is that the orthodox primates of the Anglican Communion can help those under attack in North America with provincial recognition and strong intercommunion and missional ties, but when it comes to litigation, the provinces overseas can do little to help us win the court battles.

Recognition of a new North American province for the orthodox, and revocation of provincial status for the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC would both be helpful, but the latter is unlikely.

Across the pond in the United Kingdom, the election of a new bishop for Bangor, Wales occupies much space in the news and on the blogs. As we reported last week from a reliable source, plans are afoot to place the name of Dean Jeffrey Johns on the slate. Since he identifies himself as a celibate gay priest who is in a registered civil partnership, his becoming an Anglican bishop would pose problems for a great part of the global Anglican Communion. With the opposition mounting and threats by one senior cleric in Wales to quit if this happens, one wonders if Dean Johns' name will be officially put forward, and if so, whether he would gain sufficient support for election. His elevation to the episcopacy would pose a significant problem for many bishops, archbishops and primates, yet in the case of New Hampshire in the United States, the diocese went ahead regardless of the problems caused.

Surely Archbishop Barry Morgan advised Dr. Williams about this prior to it becoming public; if not, the Archbishop of Canterbury (the former primate of Wales) might have just cause to be cranky when reading of it in the London papers. Although, since the release of the Pitt letters, it is painfully clear that the arch primate himself shares a sympathetic view of homosexual issues, surely for the sake of the church he is charged with defending he can arrange for this to be turned aside. As we noted last week, everyone is aware of the situation in advance of the election and there are therefore no free passes.

Some claim that since Dean Johns identifies himself as being celibate, thus meeting the letter of the church's official standard, and since civil partnerships are legal, there should be no obstacle to his appointment. But consider this: does the church's rule need amendment? Is a bishop in a same-sex civil partnership a wholesome example to the flock?

It is time for Christian leaders to be clear about what they believe, speak boldly and publicly in such a way that removes ambiguity, and let their yes be yes and their no be no. So much of what bishops and leaders say today is double-meaning spiritual mush designed to offend no one. The Good News of Jesus Christ requires plain, clear, simple speech that can reach both the executive in his corner office and the plough boy in the field. May we recover that virtue and grace.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Weekly message from the American Anglican Council, August 29

Via email, the weekly message from the American Anglican Council and Bishop David Anderson, August 29 [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

This past week the GAFCON Primates Council (GPC) met for the first time and began the organizational process. Decisions about who will take the duties of the General Secretary and who will be the chairman were followed by decisions about forming a Secretariat to handle the everyday business affairs associated with the Council and setting up an Advisory Board.

It may be too early to say that the GPC is fully up and running, but they are now quickly putting in place the organizational infrastructure to provide for the role that they intend to play in the years ahead. Putting together a strong infrastructure to carry out the work of GAFCON and the related Primates is essential, and creating a sound funding base for it will also be crucial for its long term effectiveness.

Those in North America were naturally listening hopefully for word about a North American Province, and desiring to hear that one had now been established. In many ways that was an unrealistic hope, since this first meeting had to organize the Council itself, a singularly daunting task, but the statement that a priority will be given to the North American situation and the formation of a Province is helpful reassurance.

In another sense, however, it is not up to the GPC to create a North American Province; their decision is whether to recognize a body already formed. It is likely that the Common Cause Partners Federation will wish to petition the 2009 Council meeting for recognition, and with its organizational issues taken care of, the Council may give favorable consideration to that recognition.

What the GPC will need to keep in mind is that the revisionist heterodoxy demonstrated by the North American church leaders also has a pernicious grasp on a good portion of the British Church as well.

With regard to "moratoria" on electing/consecrating any new homosexual bishops in the Anglican Communion, the next chance of such an election isn't in North America. We have become aware through reliable sources that Dr. Barry Morgan is a man of his word - he previously has said, "I (Barry Morgan) would ordain Britain's first gay Bishop."

Wales is in an election process for Bishop of Bangor and the election has as one of its still-secret nominees none other than Jeffrey John, sometime bishop designee for Redding, who had to withdraw when the appointment created an uproar. Failing to take the prize home with him, he was given an appointment as a Cathedral Dean to console him, but it now appears that some stock options for the future were thrown in as well (Dean Jeffrey John is in a same-sex civil partnership).

The electoral college consists of the clergy of the diocese of Bangor and all of the Bishops of the Province of the Church of Wales. Although being on the slate is no guarantee of an election, it is clearly something that Archbishop Morgan desires, having said that practicing homosexuals should not be barred from becoming bishops, and having called the opponents of such consecrations "exclusive and narrow-minded."

Could this be happening without the Archbishop of Canterbury knowing about it? Perhaps in theory, but this is Dr. Williams' former Province where he was first a bishop and then the Primate, and one would have to conclude that this type of information, even if not properly made available to Canterbury, would be soon found out by his intelligence operatives.

Dr. Williams might well wish not to know until too late, so that nothing is left on his doorstep for evidence, but we do know that Jeffrey Johns and Rowan Williams have been friends for years, and that it was extremely hard for Dr. Williams to advise Johns that it was time to fall on his sword, figuratively speaking, hence the consolation prize of a deanship. I really doubt that Dr. Williams wishes to rain on Jeffrey's parade twice, and if Canterbury would like plausible deniability, it is understandable.

However, Dr. Williams, if you are on record as knowing about this, and the event takes place despite all the "moratoria" recommendations that were made, the Archbishop of Canterbury will not get a free pass on this one. The Welch electoral college meets on September 10th and the election takes place October 10th. Will Jeffrey Johns still be on the short list for the election? Will he actually be elected?

We have said over and again that the greater part of the tear in the Anglican fabric is over the issues of Christology and the Authority of Holy Scripture, and at least in the USA, the disagreements over sexuality are derivative from these fissures. The sad part is that the media doesn't understand the theological mischief that the American church is pushing, and sex and money sell newspapers. Further, when it comes to human sexuality, nothing is ever settled - by design. If those who advocate for the gay sexual agenda lose, they keep coming back, wearing down the orthodox with "conversation", which means, listen to them until your ears fall off and you give up. If they gain ground by court or compromise, it is only the staging ground for demanding more.

Enough of this foolishness. Those who want to talk the talk and promenade about in their ecclesial vesture, but can't walk the walk, need to be removed from leadership. So...perhaps if Canterbury were to make a phone call to a certain Dean, things could go away again as they did once before. It wouldn't solve any of the existing problems, but it would keep the Communion from sinking deeper into the mess it has already created.

Oh, for the clarity and purpose of GAFCON to spread Communion-wide!

Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson, August 22

Via email, from the American Anglican Council, the weekly message from Bishop David Anderson for August 22, 2008 [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

Early this week I attended a Common Cause Partnership Lead Bishops' meeting, with discussions naturally centered around outcomes of the Lambeth Conference and the GAFCON Primates' Council meeting, and concerns for finally putting together a North American orthodox Anglican province. From there I went to a CANA-Nigeria Council meeting, with lay and clergy representatives from CANA congregations all over the USA. Visitors from other Anglican judicatories are also present observing the events, both plenary and breakout sessions.

These Anglican gatherings, such as CANA Council as well as AMiA's Winter Conference and ACN events, are so different from the atmosphere of stress and hostility that many experienced when still serving in liberal revisionist dioceses in the Episcopal Church. At these type of orthodox Anglican gatherings one can actually relax, move deeper into worship, accept sound teaching, and fellowship with others who are of similar faith. To God be the glory!

We note that a letter from Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh to Bishop Lillibridge of West Texas, which was forwarded with permission to the Windsor Continuation Group members, was leaked by someone either in Bishop Lillibridge's office or one of the Windsor Continuation Group members. Does the Windsor Continuation Group really wish to be in conversation with Bishop Duncan or the Common Cause Partnership Federation, a likely new Anglican Province in North America? There are ways to make slight modifications in a document and code them so that the miscreant identifies himself when he leaks a document. Perhaps next time, that might be an appropriate option.

One of the items that Bishop Duncan wished to protest was the treatment of border crossings as the moral equivalence of same sex marriages and gay bishops, a stance that previous Primates' Meetings refused to take. This new equivalence represents a steep moral decline on the part of the Lambeth leadership, and is further underlined by the thought that the orthodox Anglicans who have left, let me say it again, WHO HAVE LEFT the Episcopal Church, would EVER go back into the toxic theological quagmire of heterodoxy that is the leadership of TEC. We are not going into any holding bay; we are the victims and Lambeth is thinking of sending the abused back to the abuser rather than punish the abuser. But remember, if Dr Williams semi-secretly believes in the gay agenda, he cannot and will not ever really discipline TEC; rather, he would send the orthodox back for TEC to have a second go at them. I don't think the orthodox will buy that idea. That train goes to the death camp and we're not getting on it.

Andrew Carey, journalist for the Church of England Newspaper, has done a short but excellent recap on the Episcopal Church, and it is worth your taking a look. I think Andrew really gets it - now if only Dr. N. T. Wright would read, mark, learn and inwardly digest what Carey has said, the C of E would be in a better position to be a help to the Communion.

Now to close with a note of optimism: in northern Virginia, Judge Bellows has again ruled in favor of the local churches in the TEC & Diocese of Virginia lawsuit against the orthodox Anglican churches who left with their property. TEC & Virginia will keep suing and appealing, however, burning up money in lawyers' fees as part of a strategy. For churches to prevail over the bully TEC and the diocese, the churches need to have the local law on their side, the facts on their side, and enough money to stay in court forever. TEC loses on the law and loses on the facts, but if they can burn enough money, they can win by financially exhausting any opponent, as unjust as that is. But now I ask you, is a denomination like that where you want your children and grandchildren to go to church? When you go to a revisionist TEC diocese like Virginia, do you really want your Sunday morning offering to go not to the Glory of God, not to the heat/lights/salaries of a local church, not to mission work, but to persecute orthodox churches in order to force them out of their churches and onto the street? I would think that even the liberals and revisionists would get tired of that after while. For now, the orthodox Anglicans in the USA are praying for a final victory in Judge Bellows' court, and for TEC to move on to the MDG's that they keep talking about.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Holy Trinity Austin now Christ Church Anglican

And they walked away from the property:

Christ Church

A new Anglican church is “re-born” in the city of Austin
We are now meeting as Christ Church.

Same pastor, same staff, same body of Christ with a new name.

Christ Church is a community that is liturgical, evangelical, historic and contemporary at the same time; making disciples of Jesus with a heart for the lost and for justice in the city of Austin and around the world.

Come worship with us Sundays at 10:30 a.m.
at the Senior Activity Center on the southeast corner of 29th & Lamar.

And under "Who We Are":

Our Vision

Our vision is best described in three phrases: ancient-future worship, missional community and empowered evangelicals. What does that mean?It means that worship is central to who we are as God’s people. We were made to worship the Triune God. "Ancient-future worship” means recognizing the power and richness of our past, with its time-tested prayers and sacramental view of the world, on the one hand. Christ Church stands in the stream of the "Great Tradition" of God's people through the centuries. On the other hand, it means celebrating the creative explosion of contemporary worship and responding to what God is doing in the world now in music and the arts.

How about "missional community"? Christ Church called to live in community. There is no such thing as solitary Christianity. In community we grow; we are challenged and comforted; we help each other along, learn how to forgive, listen to each other's unique insights. But not only that; community is also outward. We are a community for others. We are a missional community, inviting others (locally and globally) into the grace of God and reaching out with compassion to those on the margins of society.

And "empowered evangelicalism" . . . what's that? Evangelical means that Christ Church upholds the authority of the Scriptures, teaches the Bible and proclaims its message boldly, calling people to come and follow Jesus Christ. We also seek to live in the fullness of the Holy Spirit, empowered and gifted, responsive to His voice, believing that He can break into our "natural" world to speak, heal and guide us.

Our Mission

To make disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ by proclaiming and teaching His Word, the Scriptures, nurturing and supporting His community of faith, and worshipping Him in Spirit and in truth. . .

We are an affiliate parish of the American Anglican Council

Our Staff
Cliff Warner, Rector

H/t to Stand Firm.

Weekly AAC message from Bishop David Anderson, August 15

Via email, the weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop David Anderson [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

As I reflect on the strange times we live in with regard to the Church and the Anglican Communion, I am preparing for another birthday next week. I will by year's end celebrate 64 years as an Anglican, thirty-six of them in Episcopal Church Holy Orders, and almost two years as a priest and then bishop in CANA (Nigeria), outside of TEC.

As early as 1988 I saw this conflict coming, but never imagined that it would be so worldwide or so bitter. Part of my amazement and disappointment has been with the duplicity of the current Archbishop of Canterbury, saying things in private that he has to act counter to in his public role. I could sympathize with his pain, but in reality the pain is of his own making. He can either change his mind over his privately held opinions, or he can step down from the office; either way his pain will go away. The fact that he has to espouse things publicly which the Anglican Communion is on record as believing and he secretly doesn't believe, does damage to his spirit and soul.

All of this could just be his personal burden and his personal pain, except that in looking at the decisions (and the lack of decisions) that have occurred since Dr Williams became the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is not hard to see that this personal conflict is affecting his work performance. He cannot bear to really punish the American and Canadian Churches because they are very close to where he is, though he can't say so. When the Panel of Reference failed, when the decisions of Dromantine, and Dar es Salaam, and the requirements of the September deadline were not met and we wonder why....it is because he can't bring himself to take action against those that are in fact his soul mates.

In Dr Williams' response to the controversy about the letters published last week by the Times, he stated, "In the light of recent reports based on private correspondence from eight years ago..." and then goes on to say that he still accepts the Lambeth 1.10 position. Dr Williams allowed that "In the past, as a professional theologian" he had "made some contributions" to the "study" of how the church should view homosexual relationships. This might pass muster, except for two circumstances: firstly, he wrote this most recently revealed private correspondence WHILE ARCHBISHOP OF WALES, not while in an academic ivory tower. He was then an archbishop and primate of the church, sworn to hold and uphold the beliefs taught by the Communion - just as he is now. Secondly, his work product as the primus inter pares indicates that his privately held beliefs ARE impacting his decisions about the breach of faith and discipline by America and Canada. These together nullify his claim of beliefs held only as an academic or theologian.

Attendant to that is the somewhat lengthy statement from Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, et al.: "...As bishops in the Church of England, we wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at what we regard as a gross misrepresentation of the Archbishop of Canterbury." Although they put forward five points to refute the opprobrium that came to Dr Williams attendant upon the release of the private letters, their arch collapses with their lack of proper dating of his attitudes. Their third point is a rehash of the defense that this occurred long ago when he was a theologian. They quote him in saying "that there is a difference between 'thinking aloud' as a theologian and the task of a bishop (let alone an Archbishop) to uphold the church's teaching." The problem with the third point, and hence their entire argument, is that these beliefs as made clear in the private letters were not his academic years' writings, but were communicated while holding the office of the Primate of Wales. Gentlemen, Dr Williams doesn't need your defense; he needs your collective good sense to unify his personal and public beliefs in conformity with the Anglican Communion's beliefs.

May I submit, from my own position far down the ecclesial food chain, that there is no longer theological space to be an orthodox bishop of the church and privately believe that which is contrary to what the Church teaches on core doctrine and moral discipline. To do so becomes, in the most benign situation, a form of mental illness where the individual experiences a bifurcation of mind, and in more extreme form, a spiritual illness representing a foot in each Kingdom. This time in the life of the Christian and Anglican Church calls for a clear mind aligned with and fully embracing the core teachings of the Christian faith, reformed and catholic. Full Stop.

Without seeing this as a condemnation, I would encourage readers to contemplate the truth that I am trying to describe about this conflicted situation and the pain of this bifurcation which is spreading system-wide.

Faithfully in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Weekly AAC message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email, the weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop David Anderson for August 8 [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

Lambeth is now over. Many of us are studying not only the documents of Lambeth, but the detailed analyses that are being produced by various sources, and then sitting back and saying, "OK, what is really going on, and how does this play out in the next year?"

Reports came in from Lambeth that a number of TEC revisionist bishops were spreading misinformation in their Indaba groups about the state of litigation in the United States. Their claim was that the orthodox churches and dioceses "were suing them," and the blame was really to be put on the orthodox. This is untrue, but it has been proven that if a lie is told often enough, people begin to believe there is something to it. Let us look at a few examples of lawsuits in the US.

In California, the bishop of Los Angeles is suing the orthodox churches, as is also the case in the diocese of San Diego. The Los Angeles orthodox churches won in the lower court and were reversed in a Court of Appeals, and the case is now before the California Supreme Court. The point to take away is that Bishop J. Jon Bruno initiated the lawsuit, demanding even the children's Sunday School crayons (no, I am not joking, you can read it in the public record), and for anyone, especially a California bishop, to assert that they were sued first is a deliberate untruth.

In Virginia, Bishop Peter Lee had worked out an arbitration procedure that would have allowed the churches and the diocese to negotiate an agreed-upon settlement and avoid litigation. The churches proceeded with their parish votes and the registration of the vote tallies with the local Court Houses, as per the 1867 Virginia law that applied to church splits. When the TEC Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori heard about it, she advised Bishop Lee that "there is a new sheriff in town." Lee was told that if he didn't sue the churches, TEC would sue him. Bishop Lee uncharacteristically buckled under the pressure, and without advance notice, launched the lawsuits. For him to say that the Virginia churches sued him would be a gross violation of the truth also.

Somewhere in the United States, a parish may have asked for a declaratory judgment to settle issues of property title, or may have, once they were sued, filed a counter suit in defense, but it has been the model of the orthodox churches not to use the courts to attack bishops, dioceses, or TEC. The very aggressive stance that TEC has taken was first formulated by leadership within the Presbyterian Church in the US, and it appears that TEC Chancellor David Booth Beers is following the Presbyterian game plan to a "P."

As I mentioned above, there are lengthy reviews of the Lambeth documents available, but as an extremely brief summary you must notice that those who prepared the Indaba Reflections Document prepared it as a "reflection," not as a "mind of the Conference." It was not intended for the document to be the primary outcome of the conference, but simply a narrative to track what people and groups were expressing. Finally, the Reflections were not to our knowledge voted on or formally adopted by the Conference, nor was the document intended to be a resolution that called for specific action.

However, the Archbishop of Canterbury took the document and re-characterized it according to his agenda for the future, with the implied endorsement of the entire Lambeth Conference - although it was only a small group's compilation of "reflections." If they didn't know what they were producing, Dr. Williams certainly knew what he wanted, and it did serve his purposes.

Dr. Williams would like us to believe that almost everyone wants the three moratoria on same-sex blessings, gays in the episcopate, and border crossings to be effected. No vote on this was actually taken, but on his word we are to believe this. Dr. Williams would also like us to believe that there is "a strong consensus on the need to examine how the Instruments of Communion will best work." Already voices in TEC are shrilly announcing that they have no intention of having any moratoria on anything, and some have suggested that the General Convention of TEC in the summer of 2009 will overturn any agreement to refrain from consecrations of gay bishops.

Another of Dr. Williams' points is that some sort of covenant is desirable, although the extent of its power will have to be determined. The breakdown will, of course, occur when we get to the specifics of the covenant's contents. Will it be adequate as a covenant to prevent prevarication, and will there be actual consequences for those that either break the covenant or don't sign it?

Dr. Williams believes that most favor a Pastoral Forum as something that would help the situation and he is looking for detail on how it will be formed. What is not discussed is his lack of resolve for actually incurring painful consequences. His abysmal performance with the Panel of Reference and the lack of funding available will be crucial factors. If he needs to ask TEC for money for this, you know in advance the outcome has been bought.

Dr. Williams is already $4 million US dollars in the hole for shortfall on the just-ended Lambeth Conference. He has reportedly asked Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori for permission to raise money from TEC in the United States to help cover the debt. Next year he proposes having the JSC and the ACC and the Primates all meeting in one year. Will there be a budget shortfall next year, too? If so, who would cover it?

Dr. Williams is a master at building things designed not to work, such as the Panel of Reference, and now, the Lambeth Conference. All of this is to keep us together while we listen to his encouragement, promises and announcement of another meeting in six or nine or twelve months. In much of the Anglican world, however, everyone is a bit wiser now, and we realize the cause for his procrastination is that he secretly agrees with the gay agenda and hopes that if he can avoid an actual split, in time we will all come along. It is, after all, happening in England, and why can't everyone be like the Church of England, which lets the secular government tell it what is moral and proper? The latest bizarre story is the Bishop of Exeter, the Rt. Rev. Michael Langrish, giving his blessing for a "gay wedding" between Canon Rodney Bomford and his gardener Paddy O'Neil. The marriage couple held a "stag and hen party" at a local pub and apparently the "bride" dressed up in a pink top hat and had a sash.

Letters that Dr. Williams wrote as recently as 2002, when he was appointed as Archbishop, reveal his real beliefs, and they help us to understand why he cannot and will not act to bring the Anglican Communion into good order and faith. His comments, which several British newspapers have now seen and reported on, refute the Anglican Communion's traditional teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful. He goes on to express his hope the the Anglican Communion will at some point change its position to be open to gay partnerships.

He is quoted as saying, "The Bible does not address the matter of appropriate behavior for those who are, for whatever reason, homosexual by instinct or nature." His reported academic brilliance may be as the "emperor's clothes;" this type of remark does such violence to the plain reading of scripture that it should disqualify any such speaker from any level of Holy Orders.

The concept that homosexuality is natural is fully unproven, but, like other types of propaganda, if repeated enough times, some will begin to believe it. For a moment, for the sake of argument, suppose that homosexuality is natural. It then joins many kinds of behavior that are "natural" but forbidden in the Kingdom of God. We are called to put aside the natural in order to put on the supernatural. Violence is very natural for human beings, yet we are called as Christians to turn aside from violence. An eye for an eye is natural, but forgiveness as God forgives us is the model we are called to. When scripture says that men are not to lie with men as with a woman, what part of that is not clear to Dr. Williams? It is an encompassing statement, permitting of no nuancing; it has no footnotes about only applying to heterosexual males who are doing something that they really don't want to do anyway. It uses inclusive language - men are not to do this. Other passages refer to women, lest they feel slighted by omission. Scripture is uncomfortably clear on most of the difficult things such as sex and money, so why is it that the "Primus inter Pares" of the Anglican Communion, who is reputed to be a brilliant scholar, cannot read, mark, learn and inwardly digest these scriptures? Hmm.

If you want to know where all of this is going, read what Rowan had written when he didn't know it would be in the London Times and the Telegraph. Then connect the dots. It does make me wonder if in fact a Queen's option still exists. This revelation about Dr. Williams tells us much about how his use of these post-Lambeth bodies will advance not only his stated agenda, but his now-more-visible underlying agenda.

Let us pray for the Anglican Church, that God's will (not anyone else's) be done. And let us pray for better times and for faithful leaders that the orthodox laity and clergy can truly trust, look up to, and follow.

Blessings and Peace in Jesus Christ,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Weekly American Anglican Council message (August 1)

Via email, the weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop David Anderson from August 1 [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ Jesus,

Lambeth is going into its last weekend, and soon it will be time for all of the bishops in attendance to hold hands, sing "Kumbaya" and go home. So what is happening in these closing days, and what might the bishops be bringing home with them?

On July 29, the Archbishop of Canterbury and convener of the Lambeth Conference gave a speech, in which he opined that the official Conference statement will speak from the center - but then he had to clarify what that means. It apparently does not mean the midpoint between two extremes, but rather from the heart of our identity as Anglicans. When you see language like that, you know that you are being set up. He has first of all posited that the revisionists are an extreme, and likewise the orthodox conservatives are an equal extreme. Those who stand for 2000 years of orthodox teaching and practice have, by fiat of Dr. Williams, become an extreme, and different from where he stands, which is vaguely described as "from the heart of our identity as Anglicans...and that deepest centre which is our awareness of living in and as the Body of Christ."

Excuse me, but I believe that description of "the centre" is exactly where the orthodox see themselves standing. If he thinks the center of orthodoxy is somewhere else he is once again seriously mistaken.

He then begins to use squishy, TEC-like words when he speaks of an "intelligent generosity" to be born. I would agree with him that it is important to know and understand what each group really means and needs, and a win-win approach such as put forward in the popular book "Getting to Yes" would require such, but all of this pre-supposes that the issues can be resolved. If Dr. Williams understood, really understood, the issues, he would have to come to the sad conclusion that unity is no longer possible or even desirable at this time.

Dr. Williams has stated in the past that there is no theological divide between TEC and the Communion. The truth is that his examination of TEC was done while he had his eyes firmly closed. The American Anglican Council put into his hands (actually in the hands of his Lambeth Palace staff, to be given to him) prior to the New Orleans TEC House of Bishops meeting, a compilation showing TEC's lack of compliance with the Dar es Salaam requirements. It wasn't a text of our writing; we simply printed - unaltered - the words of senior TEC leaders, including Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, which, in page after page, documented TEC's theological deviation from orthodox Anglican belief and practice.

Did he read it? Going into the HOB meeting Dr. Williams either knew or should have known of TEC's words and actions after Dar es Salaam. The AAC's document gave him the first-hand research he needed to make a decision, and the truth was that TEC's level of compliance was abysmal. Yet, perhaps in this same spirit of "intelligent generosity," he declared what was not compliance in any sense to be good enough. Dr. Williams is now faced with a Solomonic decision and he can't bear the price of that decision, so he writes in circles leaving everyone wondering exactly what he is saying and why.

Is the desired outcome to keep both TEC and the orthodox in the Communion, but to marginalize the orthodox so that they are rendered impotent? In Dar es Salaam, Dr. Williams urged the Primates to accept a plan to push all of the former TEC congregations and clergy back into TEC under so-called Windsor Bishops. After apparently heated negotiations, the Primates agreed to that conditionally, with an exception given to CANA and AMiA, since they already had bishops who are resident in the USA. In exchange for all of this, TEC was supposed to agree to make certain changes. TEC didn't make any changes, TEC rejected the alternative oversight scheme, and the overseas connections continued to grow as more churches and then a diocese left.

Dr. Williams and his coterie have not given up on this idea of forcing the departed congregations and dioceses back into TEC (and the Anglican Church of Canada), only now they are using the term Communion Partners in one instance and Anglican Pastoral Forum in another. This is a serious matter on several levels. Firstly, it is based on a false supposition that those who have left would willingly go back to the increasingly pantheistic provinces from which they fled. Secondly, the idea of forcing congregations back into TEC and the Canadian church clearly shows a lack of understanding as to how far these bodies have deviated from historic Christian belief and how determined they are to maintain their current direction. Does anyone really think TEC or their Canadian brothers will abide by any sort of moratoria? Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.

Buried well within the Windsor Continuation Report is a sentence worth flagging: "We are encouraged by the planned setting up of the Communion Partners initiative in the Episcopal Church as a means of sustaining those who feel at odds with developments taking place in their own province but who wish to be loyal to, and to maintain, their fellowship within TEC and within the Anglican Communion." When Archbishop Clive Handford was further questioned on the Report, Steve Waring of the Living Church noted that Handford advised that the Windsor Continuation Group would not permit any new parish or diocese to "opt out" of its diocese or province. Other reports from the Windsor Continuation Group indicated that the moratoria would be on 1) PUBLIC parish same-sex blessings/weddings and 2) consecrations of homosexual bishops. The inference is that private blessings of same-sex unions would continue along with ordinations of actively homosexual priests and deacons.

Additionally the Report called for an Anglican Pastoral Forum (Panel of Reference redux?) which would act quickly (is that Anglican?) to mitigate conflict. How would this be staffed and funded adequately and how would this be actually enforced with any muscle? Handford then used an analogy which was astonishingly patronizing at best and seriously misconstrued at worst. He compared those North Americans who have fled the abuse of TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada to those who in a family aren't getting on: "It's a bit like having a member of the family who is not getting on with the family, having an aunt or uncle who can take them under their wing while they work for the restoration of the family."

Dear Archbishop Handford, the problem is not the child who flees physical and emotional abuse at the hands of a pathologically flawed parent; it is the pathology, spiritual or physical, of the parent(s) who abuse their children. In Atlanta, USA, an abused child was mistakenly sent back to live with the parent who had done the abuse, and when the child was killed by the parent, the authorities began pointing fingers at each other. You will not send us back to suffer under TEC, full stop. TEC is committed to revisionist theology that threatens the souls of those who believe its teachings, and it is committed to the homosexual agenda of full parity (if not more) in the church, and TEC will not step back from this. Listen to what TEC is saying - and in this case they are telling you the truth - there is no going back for them.

It is alarming that Williams, Hanford, et al. apparently believe in a Pollyanna solution that ignores the hard realities. Pushing forward a Windsor Continuation Group, an Anglican Pastoral Forum, and a Communion Partners Group will not take the air out of the decisions reached at GAFCON. What will work is fully disciplining TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, and taking the Communion down the true middle which is historic Christian Anglican orthodoxy. When TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada fully repent, change their theological viewpoint and behavior and become orthodox again, then talk about reunification of North American churches is appropriate, but not before.

I am afraid that it finally comes down to leadership and whether the leaders have the accurate vision, the full appreciation of the facts on the ground, and the means and resolve to move forward.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop Anderson

The weekly American Anglican Council message from Bishop David Anderson via email [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

At the AAC, we learned long ago that since the media can help or hurt you, treat them humanely, the way you would wish to be treated. When an event occurs, certainly those present take away their own impressions, but for the vast majority who will only read about it or see it on the TV, the media interprets the event. Why would anyone go out of their way to make life miserable for the media? Although GAFCON in Jerusalem wasn't perfect from a media standpoint, there was a sincere attempt to get the media what they needed: access inside during plenary sessions, interviews with bishops, press conferences, etc. In retrospect, could it have been done better? Absolutely, but there was a genuine attempt to do the right thing for the media.

Contrasted with that philosophy is the view that the media is your enemy and you must a) keep them out, b) choose between good and bad media for access, and c) have everyone so disciplined that their talking points are recited no matter what the question. One has to pity the media, seeing how they are being treated at Lambeth, but then again, it doesn't sound like the bishops themselves are being all that well taken care of, either. The secrecy thing is either hilarious or pathetic: is not everyone there under godly authority? Are some there in defiance of their House of Bishops or their Primate? Are they making a "prophetic statement" by being there anyway? Yet their "prophetic statement" must be kept secret.

Since we know that the Church of England still claims that they have a membership of 25 million souls, and attendance records indicate that in fact they only have 1.6 million, their accuracy with mathematics doesn't seem stellar. Their membership disparity is the spiritual or ecclesial equivalent to the sub-prime loan crisis affecting so many in the USA housing market. Book value of loans doesn't mean much when the money isn't there, and the book value in souls of the Church of England is like a sub-prime loan, overstated, overvalued and under-performing. As the banks have a steep write down on loans, an honest church would acknowledge a steep write down on membership. This of course applies to other parts of the Anglican Communion as well, for example, the American Episcopal Church.

While we are speaking of banks missing money and churches missing people, it is interesting to note that the Lambeth Conference organizers are missing some of both. With a track record of overstating membership, the CofE Lambeth organizers appear to also be overstating the attendance at the Lambeth Conference. Various onsite estimates question the 670 number given by officials, and suggestions of 550 up to 600 are being mentioned by some media sources.

Missing bishops isn't the only thing bothering the Lambeth Conference and Dr. Rowan Williams - there is the lack of money in pounds sterling. In planning a event as large as this, care has to be taken or the event can get away from you and put you in serious debt. Whoever was in charge of this department was apparently busy elsewhere, for Lambeth is between 1 million and 2 million pounds (approximately 2-4 million USD) short. Now, as soon as the Conference closes up shop and everyone departs, the vendors will want to be paid. It is a bit awkward to be short, not just a quid or two, but 2 million. If the bailiff shows up at Lambeth Palace, will the guard open the gate? If he does, will there be a garage sale to raise the funds? If so, there are several pieces in the large waiting rooms that caught my eye, and I might like to bid on them.

Who has that kind of money to bail Dr. Williams out? Who has that much money who would wish to bail Dr. Williams out? TEC? They are still a bit testy over Bishop Gene Robinson's exclusion, and who could forget his exclusion, given his daily pandering to those outside the fence of steel, wanting everyone to see him and know how pained he is at being rejected. Robinson is quoted as saying he is infuriated at being kept out. No, I don't think that TEC is likely to drop a million dollars or more, and if they did, and if Rowan accepted it, he would truly look like a bought man. He won't want to do that; that might be worse than the bailiff coming by. Though, and this is worth thinking about, if TEC did give Lambeth Conference two to four million dollars, it would be that much less money Katharine Jefferts Schori could use to sue devout Christian Anglicans in the United States. So...Katharine, go for it - give him the money, pretend Lambeth is a MDG, and let Dr. Williams worry about his credibility.

Speaking of Bishop Robinson, one has to admire and salute the Sudanese bishops and primate who made such a clear, concise, loving and bold call to Robinson, TEC and the Communion. Their call to Robinson to resign and for all of the TECies to go home and repent was earth-shaking. Bravo!

Dr. Williams has himself called the Lambeth Conference's legitimacy into question, but blamed those who are staying away. One of the three English bishops refusing to come to Lambeth, Peter Broadbent, has invited Williams to put that point to him in person. If Lambeth is itself called into question does that not by inference affect its convener as well? One of the principal rights that the Archbishop of Canterbury has is as a convener of the Church and Communion, and both GAFCON and the large absence of bishops at Lambeth have seriously called into question whether Dr. Williams is still THE convener any longer. He didn't convene GAFCON and it was a huge success, and Lambeth, which he did convene, has come up short of both bishops and money, and seems to be breaking down into contention. Dr. Williams, taking yet another shot at GAFCON, has said, "I think people will have to make the judgment as to whether those provinces who are not here have a coherent alternative to what the Communion as gathered here is saying and wanting to do." Actually, I think people will certainly be making a judgment as to whether the life, vitality and can-do attitude of GAFCON doesn't look a whole lot more inviting and exciting than muddling on with more committees and commissions which meet and talk and write reports.

Ending this week's update on a very positive note, the Common Cause Partnership (CCP) leaders issued a statement today welcoming the Jerusalem Declaration and the statement on the Global Anglican Future, pledging to move forward with the work of Anglican unity in North America.

Drawing from the GAFCON statement where it says that it is now time for the federation currently known as the Common Cause Partnership to be recognized by the Primates Council, the CCP gave notice that they will respond to this invitation. "The intention of the Executive Committee is to petition the Primates' Council for recognition of the CCP as the North American Province of GAFCON on the basis of the Common Cause Partnership Articles, Theological Statement, and Covenant Declaration, and to ask that the CCP Moderator be seated in the Primates' Council."

I can only wonder what this next week will bring. To God be the Glory.

Blessings and Peace in Jesus Christ,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

This week my comments start with the North American scene: the bishop of Central Florida, John Howe, whose Christian orthodoxy is solid but whose sense of strategy sometimes leaves others puzzled, has decided that he needs to part company with the Anglican Communion Network and join the Anglican Communion Institute and its allied group, Communion Partners.

Bishop Howe's relationship with the Anglican Communion Network seemed tenuous from the beginning in the eyes of some, though his diocese was solidly behind it. Now with major departures of congregations and clergy from his diocese in favor of overseas Primatial ties, there has been a shift in allegiance in Central Florida. Bishop Howe has recently, with his diocese, objected to the manner and legality of the depositions that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori imposed on bishops Cox and Schofield, and he was joined by several other dioceses and bishops in this well-justified protest.

TEC bishop John Chane of Washington, DC has gone over the edge, accusing African leaders of treating him and his church as a punching bag. He so dislikes having his heterodox beliefs held up to scrutiny that he accuses those who put the spotlight on him of being "demonic." Now it is one thing to say to a brother, "your beliefs are wrong and your practice is wrong," and when he doesn't respond, to make those same statements before the larger church family. It is another matter to say that someone is in league with the devil, which is what Chane is saying when he uses the term "demonic." This is not the first time the liberal revisionists have resorted to such language. Former Presiding Bishop Griswold did it at the end of the Primates' meeting in Northern Ireland. It marks the level of desperation, when those caught hijacking the Church of Jesus are exposed, for them to demonize their opponents. If one wishes to look at Bishop Chane and his diocese of Washington more closely, they will see a shrinking church, growing more financially troubled by the year, whose main claim to fame at this point is the Washington National Cathedral, a beautiful Gothic edifice. Chane's most recent problem with the orthodox is that we uphold Jesus' own words when He said, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through me." This sits uncomfortably with Chane, a pluralist, who finds this language so narrow. Perhaps if Chane could have been the press officer for Jesus, he would have interrupted Him to say, "What Mr. Jesus means to say is....I'm just one way, there are lots of ways, everybody finds the Father/Mother/Whatever sooner or later, so pick what works for you." Thankfully Chane wasn't around back then.

Moving to the international setting, the recent actions in England which denied any formal and permanent relief to those opposed to the women bishops vote has resulted in much speculation. What will the Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals do? Many may leave, but where will they go? Are the Anglo Catholics welcome to come to Rome en mass or not? Some have suggested they are, some have said no, because the liberal English Roman Catholics do not want an infusion of conservative orthodox Catholics into their church, which would shift the demographics and affect how the Catholic Church in England functions. From other sources we hear that Rome will be welcoming orthodox Anglicans and making them a deal of some sort. Certainly married bishops who take this option will find an obstacle in their path, one that will require setting aside their episcopal garb and office, but for them, that may be a price they will willingly pay.

Archbishop Rowan Williams continues to speak against GAFCON and what it stands for, principally because he can't control it or steer it. Many have called Dr. Williams a man of prayer, others a man of superior intellect, and perhaps both are true. We would look for the fruit of both in his work. What we have seen is a man whose leadership embodies a most unusual approach, one which has not, to date, born constructive results. We don't want to see him step down, but instead we would continue to urge that he address the heterodoxy in the communion which is occurring on his watch. The reality is that, with a tip of the hat to the office, a new order within the Anglican Communion will emerge, driven by the growth and orthodoxy of those who were present at GAFCON in Jerusalem.

To end on a positive note, the Nigerian Anglican Church is very much a church in good order, to which all the bishops are subject, from the bishop of the smallest missionary district to the largest diocese, to the primate himself. His Grace was very much wishing to retire and slow down, and has been saying so for the last two years. Many of us could not see how the realignment could be as strong if he retired so soon. Recently, when he submitted his request to the bishops of the Church of Nigeria in the form of a notice of voluntary retirement as Primate, and before his full term was expired, the request was denied. They requested him to complete his tenure which ends in 2010. Many sincerely sympathize with Archbishop Akinola, recognizing the effort and energy that his job has taken over these last years, but we commend the decision. He will thus stay on as Primate until 2010 and be able to continue working with GAFCON and the Primates' Council.

To God be the glory.

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Weekly AAC message from Bishop David Anderson

From Bishop David Anderson at the American Anglican Council, his weekly message via email [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

As we comment from week to week on matters affecting the Anglicans in North America, and in a broader sense, globally, we need to be aware that we are not in a single-issue battle. Issues of theology, and especially Christology, put us in conflict with a good portion of the pseudo-intellectual Western elites, who for all intents and purposes seem to have lost their faith.

Issues of morality and culture, which are normally derivative of an intact faith system, have put us in conflict with major cultural and sociological trends that exalt the individual's rights at the expense of the family, the community, or the church's ability to set boundaries on behavior. It seems that today’s culture has made the individual consumer god. If you have the money, you have a right to do it or buy it or have it done to you. The Christian Church, carrying with it the moral and ethical life of the Old Testament, also carries a new commandment to love one another even as Jesus has loved us. The Christian Church then has and does set moral and ethical boundaries on behavior, and this now puts us in conflict in many civil and secular settings. Our boundaries derive from Holy Scripture, whereas for the secular world, the boundaries (or lack thereof) depend on the situation, derive from the exaltation of the individual, and finally become, "I am entitled to everything I say I am entitled to," and "No one is going to tell me what I can and cannot do." This often revolves around two principal foci, money or sex, things people seem intensely interested in.

A third area that concerns us as orthodox Anglicans is the invasion of Islam into supposedly solid Christian areas, and the rapidity with which Christians seem to be rolling over and not adequately responding. I used to wonder how Islam conquered North Africa so easily, suppressing such a vital Christian area and pushing the Christian faith into a small corner of the community. Watching the idiocy of many governmental leaders in the Western world today, ready to give away so much to accommodate the demands of Muslim immigrants into their land, and seeing the Christians, with only a few exceptions, fail to rise to the challenge, I think I understand a little better what happened in North Africa. One difference there was that Islam conquered cities and territories by the sword… but who needs a sword if they can accomplish the same result by making demands and through thuggery and intimidation? I am thinking especially of articles about English vicars being beaten and harassed at their churches by Muslim youths.

Now to comment on some of the issues falling into these three categories mentioned above: The Episcopal Church’s Diocese of El Camino Real, in California, has issued official guidelines for blessing homosexual relationships. The State of California's Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual marriage must be permitted under the same conditions as traditional man-woman marriage, based on equal treatment under the law. There is a popular grassroots referendum that is being prepared to change the California Constitution and effectively overturn the Supreme Court's ruling, but that referendum is several months away. Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church is hurrying at breakneck speed to accommodate the homosexual marriage ruling by tacking on a blessing service for the wedding couple. These Episcopal Dioceses will be able to technically say they don't do gay weddings, because a civil authority does the vows and pronouncement part, then the church blends right in with the "spiritual" part. Episcopal bishops who are gay advocates will go to Lambeth swearing that they don't do gay weddings--for those others who find themselves at Lambeth, understand the duplicity that you are hearing.

In the UK, the issue of women bishops has been rammed down the throats of the Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals who don't believe that women Biblically can hold the episcopal order. After fervent (and we believe sincere) pleas by Canterbury, York and Durham, to mention only three, not to rush into this, and certainly not without provision for those who dissent and will need an alternative, the "our way or the highway" majority gave due notice of where the Church of England is headed.

Will this result in mass departures to Rome? Will this result in a GAFCON fellowship or even ecclesial body in England? Might a new Province even be established overlaying England? History is indeed being made.

But over and above all this turmoil, God in His wisdom rules, and His purposes will be carried out. Our job is to be much in prayer, seeking his will for our individual and corporate lives. May we carry out faithfully the tasks He gives us to do.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C.
Anderson, Sr.
President & CEO of the American Anglican Council

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email, from the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

Orthodox Anglicans are under attack from several quarters, with the rise of Islamic militancy in England and the press of homosexual advancement, which affect many areas of everyday life, from the courts to the market place to the schools.

In the first area, we note the disturbing trend in England of Anglican clergy being threatened in their own parishes by militant young Muslims who want to chase them out. We also note that the Church of England freezes like a deer in the headlights of an oncoming automobile whenever Muslim issues are raised. If CofE bishops believe that Jesus is the Way, and the Truth and the Life, and none come unto the Father except through him...and that statement is fairly direct - from Jesus himself, then why will they not allow discussion of evangelization to Muslims at the upcoming Synod? Are they frightened? You would have to think so, but why are the bishops frightened?

Not all are. The bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, has been bold, truthful and prophetic, and many ecclesiastics in England don't want to listen to him. He said there were "No-Go areas" where Christians ventured at their peril. On the other hand, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said that Sharia Law is probably inevitable in some areas. What a contrast!

Now we read of two Christian preachers handing out Christian tracts to Muslims in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham, who were harrassed by the police for allegedly being involved in "hate" activities. My friends, if Western Civilization doesn't get its act together, we will certainly deserve the hell that is visited upon us. Wouldn't you think that someone should have arrested the police officer involved? The West Midlands Police apparently refused to apologize, although an investigation of the officer's actions was promised.

At the other end of the faith spectrum is the press of global homosexual activism. In the US, California's Supreme Court has ruled that the state must provide for homosexuals to marry legally. Meanwhile, a voter-led referendum has been qualified for this autumn's ballot which would put a change into the California Constitution that would limit marriage to between a man and a woman. In California, it often happens that laws and major changes have to be implemented by popular referendum of the people, since most of the public representatives and officials are in the grip of the homosexual lobby. Power to the people!

In England the government enforcement of pro-homosexual rules on adoption threaten to close the Roman Catholic adoption agencies. An article covering this issue points to some new options, however, if the agencies stipulate that their operations will be based on the religious and moral principles of the Catholic Faith. We pray that the RC's strategists will prevail and their agencies' good work will continue.

In the Episcopal Wars in the USA, the national Episcopal Church (TEC), has launched both a legal and public relations attack on the departed diocese of San Joaquin and the diocesan, Bishop John-David Schofield. Upon discovering that the Diocese of San Joaquin and Bishop Schofield, now affiliated with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, were in the process of moving assets into a Merrill Lynch account, they promptly named Merrill Lynch in the lawsuit already underway. Merrill Lynch, as most brokerages and banks in that position would do, froze the accounts until the court determines who the "rightful" owner is. San Joaquin's mistake was several fold: waiting so long to reposition the assets; putting them in a brokerage or bank that did not already understand the risk of litigation; and putting them in an account where TEC could so easily apply pressure.

Many churches departing TEC have learned the hard way that the first thing that hostile TEC operatives do is to visit the bank of record and present new signature cards. The bank panics and freezes the account until the court tells them which signature cards are the valid ones. Meanwhile the true owners of the bank accounts are unable to access their own money. There are ways to avoid this, of course, if care is taken to prevent this type of seizure, but it involves anticipating what TEC is going to do before they do it.

All of this is accompanied by slanted news releases from the official Episcopal Church party organ, Episcopal News Service (ENS). They are fond of referring to Bishop Schofield as "former bishop John-David Schofield," to convey the idea that their irregular attempt at deposition of Schofield successfully changed his status to that of a layman in the church. TEC seems unwilling to acknowledge that Bishop Schofield was accepted as a bishop into the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and thereby his status as a bishop was moved from TEC to the Southern Cone. Even if their deposition is finally held to have been effective, they lost jurisdiction over him before the "trial," and could at best only extinguish his right to function as a bishop in TEC. The Province of the Southern Cone holds the jurisdiction over his functioning as a bishop, yet the ENS continues to refer to him as "former bishop Schofield," and then as "Mr. Schofield." Although titles in themselves aren't that important, TEC actually puts great stock in them, and their refusal to use the title of bishop for Schofield, and instead insist on using "Mr." tells us that TEC must think that this is really important. Unfortunately, that makes them not only wrong, but petty.

Midway between those who have left The Episcopal Church and hard-core TEC'ers, a new Anglican group has formed. Communion Partners is made up of those not wishing to or unable to leave TEC, but believing that good things could still come of working with the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, primus inter pares. The new group says of itself, "The Communion Partner bishops will work together according to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report and seek a comprehensive Anglican Covenant at the Lambeth Conference and beyond." Three or four years ago this would have sounded better to us, but our observation is that neither Presiding Bishop Schori nor Archbishop Williams can be relied upon for any agreement, any implementation, or any safety for those of orthodox faith. We wish the Communion Partners well, and pray that God will protect them from harm and from the duplicity and deceit that many of us have encountered coming from TEC and Lambeth Palace. The Windsor Report was actually a flawed document from the beginning, but we think we could have lived with it if it were fully and strongly enforced across the board... failing that, we would look elsewhere for a better Anglican future.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

American Anglican Council weekly update

Via email, a message from AAC president, Bishop David Anderson [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

Although the besetting sins of the American Episcopal Church have been teaching paths to God other than through Jesus Christ and playing down the authority of Holy Scripture, the aspect that most people see is the relentless pushing of the homosexual agenda. We read in the Los Angeles Diocese's "Episcopal News" Update from May 25, 2008, that Episcopalians are encouraged to join in the Los Angeles Gay Pride parade on June 8. We quote: "The Bishop's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Ministry invites the diocesan community to join them and Bishop J. Jon Bruno to march and pray in this year's Los Angeles LGBT Pride parade on Sunday, June 8." It goes on to say that "Episcopalians will gather for a celebration of the Eucharist at 9 am in the Bank of America parking lot at the northeast corner of Santa Monica Blvd and Crescent Heights in West Hollywood before moving elsewhere to line up for the parade."

Doesn't that just warm your heart, knowing that not only are misguided clergy and laity supporting Gay Pride, but Episcopal/Anglican bishops are, too - even riding on a float. This is not a new occurrence in the LA Diocese, because each year the bishops take turns participating. The real question is, "When will Katharine Jefferts Schori be photographed riding on a float for Gay Pride?" And it isn't just in Los Angeles; the Episcopal Church bishops and priests are often represented in Gay Pride parades around the country.

It appears, if an article by Hilary White for LifeSite News is true, that now the British Government will officially, though covertly, push the homosexual agenda using all of their embassies and chancery offices around the world, even if that subverts the law of the nation they are in. This is truly breathtaking news, and raises a profound question if true: is there in fact an organized international effort to corrupt the moral climate of the entire world? If the story is true, this public exposure of the British diplomatic agenda will have far-reaching consequences. Within England, the governments' pro-homosexual legislation has caused the Roman Catholic Church to begin pulling out of the adoption ministry, because all agencies will have to handle adoptions for homosexual couples as well as for married heterosexual ones. Lost will be a vital ministry which helps both small children and couples desiring a child, along with the millions of pounds sterling poured into these agencies by Roman Catholics for buildings and services.

Word has reached us of Islamic attacks in northern Nigeria, and churches being burned. Apparently the Islamic tactic of kidnapping young girls, forcing them to convert to Islam, and then marrying them off to Muslim men, has finally resulted in police action. Although the girls in this case were rescued by the police and taken out of the area for safety, this is something that many in our Christian Anglican family have to deal with when they are a minority in Islamic Sharia Law areas. Is England ready for this? The Archbishop of Canterbury has already said that Sharia Law is "probably inevitable" in England. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali has a better idea - why not introduce Muslims to the real Christian faith and give them the opportunity to be freed from misunderstandings and become an inheritor of eternal life through Jesus Christ? In the meanwhile, let us pray for those Christians in northern Nigeria whose lives and property are today at risk.

Moving from the global back to the local, the number of dioceses that are protesting the form and manner of the depositions of Bishops Cox and Schofield, done at the last House of Bishops' meeting, continues to grow. South Carolina and Central Florida have been joined by Springfield, Northern Indiana, Western Louisiana, and more may follow.

Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

This week let me begin with a personal praise report. My grandson Palmer has this week passed his five year cancer-free date, and the doctors have pronounced him cured. It was a long battle and at several time we worried that we might lose him, but the prayers of thousands around the world and the Grace of God preserved and healed him. He has no cognitive damage, nor any physical impairment that we can ascertain. He is very intelligent, very loving, and a good soccer player. To God be the glory.

We note the letter of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to Archbishop and Primate Henry Orombi telling him to stay out of "her domain." She of course sent a copy to Bishop Henry Louttit, who is under pressure to continue litigation against Christ Church, Savannah, the Mother Church of all Georgia and the Rev. John Wesley's American parish. She also sent a copy to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The interesting thing is she waited to notify Orombi until he was already within a stone's throw of Georgia, leaving him to discover her letter posted on the Internet. It is clear that this was ninety percent theatrics on the part of Schori.

What is quite remarkable is the response from His Grace, Henry Orombi, to Jefferts Schori, pointing out that he is not visiting one of her churches, but rather one of his own! The problem is that TEC doesn't recognize anyone's ability to leave TEC. Like a pitcher plant, once you have alighted on the great blossom, you are stuck fast, never to be free again... except, in the real world of churches, anyone and everyone is able to vote with their voice, with their wallet, and finally, with their feet.

Continuing this theme of the "Hotel California" where "you can check out but you can never leave," Bishop Rob O'Neill has pulled a new dirty trick out of TEC's bag of scurrilous actions. According to journalist David Virtue, who is covering the story, seven years ago then-Bishop Winterrowd legally transferred clergy out of Colorado and into the Province of South East Asia by Letters Dimissory. This international transferability of Holy Orders has been a keystone of the Anglican Communion. Now seven years later, the current bishop, Rob O'Neill, has decided to void those legal transfers and canonically depose those clergy for "abandonment of communion of this Church." Do you remember the book "Alice in Wonderland"? That is what it is like living either in the Episcopal Church, or even next door to it. The meanness and fear which these punitive actions show is evidence of how afraid TEC is of the growing orthodox Anglican presence around the nation. The Anglican Church of Canada, similarly fearful, is commencing like-minded retribution against those who have left or are trying to leave.

On the international scene, we remember that it was only a few weeks ago that the Rt. Rev. Tom Wright, was telling everyone that a "get tough" letter was coming from Lambeth Palace to the TEC bishops who didn't support the Covenant and were part of the group who consecrated Gene Robinson. Many of us wondered whether Tom Wright was going to be "wrong again" or whether, given his close contact with Lambeth, maybe he was onto something - or then again, maybe he was being used. The long-awaited Lambeth Letter has come out, and it is a "cream puff" of a letter. What went wrong? Why did Wright get it wrong?

Bishop Tom may have gotten it right to start with, but when a large number of liberal revisionist English bishops told Rowan Williams that if he excluded those Americans, they wouldn't come either, it appears that the Primate of Primates caved in and changed the letter. Tom Wright was left with the ground cut out from under him. Wright could have gotten it right if the left hadn't muscled in. Apparently, the revisionist English bishops are less afraid of pushing back than their orthodox colleagues; why is that?

Lastly, we have received word that the gay and lesbian advocacy groups are planning a major assault on the Lambeth Conference, and are raising money to finance it. Information can be found here. The stage is being set for a media and public relations battle at Canterbury as well as an attempt to sway the bishops present. Things do not look very pretty for Lambeth.

In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, we worship our God, three in one. Have a blessed Trinity Sunday and weekend.

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email, the weekly message from Bishop David Anderson with the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

This week, a good portion of my time has been invested in an Executive Committee meeting of the Common Cause Partners Federation. If this organization is, hopefully, to be more than just a gathering of orthodox judicatory and mission organizations' leaders, work has to be commenced on some difficult issues. The good news is that such work is being addressed. After the many disappointments of the past five to eight years, I am reluctant to pronounce when something will happen and what it will look like, but I do have a great deal of optimism about the future for the Common Cause participants. I see a willingness to look the hard issues in the face and begin trying to work on them. Is the task formidable? Absolutely! But the important thing is that the leaders I am sitting beside are willing to begin the process, and this willingness will continue to be reflected when the same bishops are gathered for GAFCON. I also have a good deal of hope and optimism for GAFCON, that it will bring forth what will unfold into the future of Anglicanism.

When the American Anglican Council writes to those overseas about the troubles on the spiritual landscape in North America, it is often the case that our listeners or readers will default to the easiest understanding - sex. I have explained to journalists at length that the sexuality issues in North America are derivative of the theological errors of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. The orthodox Anglicans in North America fervently believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and none come unto the Father except through him. Jesus gave us this doctrine himself, and it becomes a litmus test for the theological deviation that has occurred and is progressing at an alarming rate. Additionally, the orthodox Anglicans believe the Holy Scripture to be "God breathed," as II Timothy 3:16 phrases it. We believe that Holy Scripture has the authority to speak into both our spiritual and our "secular" lives, and to provide not only the words of eternal life, but also the proper ordering of our behavior and discipline.

The great divide we face is that the liberal revisionists no longer believe this, and it is a very significant departure from historic Christianity. In their view, Jesus is a way to the Father, but you can pick the path that works best for you. Likewise, scripture is written by the church and can be rewritten and reinterpreted by the church to mean different things than it has for the past two millennia. In reality, if Bishop Gene Robinson were to resign tomorrow, very little would change in North America. Sexuality issues are the presenting symptom that indicates a visit to the doctor's office is needed, but they are not the disease. Departure from the historic Christian faith is the disease, and sexual perversions, dealings in witchcraft and the occult, and other manifestations are the consequent result. If you are not here to witness it, it is hard to comprehend how wacko the Episcopal Church scene is getting. We couldn't make this stuff up if we tried, so we will just report it to you to underline our point: as bad as the homosexuality issues are in the church, the bizzare theology is even worse.

David Kalvelage, the Executive Editor of The Living Church, a respected orthodox weekly publication centered on the life and events within the Episcopal Church, has written an excellent article that goes to the point of my remarks above. David has given us permission to reprint the entirety of his article which appears in the May 11 edition of The Living Church. Read the article below, and bear in mind that no one made this up, and this is the very sad and dangerous state of much of the Episcopal Church. People's eternal life is being put at risk because teaching such as this is disseminated by diocesan sources, and those who believe and act on it are at peril.

Speaking of Gene Robinson, he is again claiming that his life is being threatened, but this has all of the narcissistic credibility of the young Nigerian gay man who keeps claiming that he was attacked in Nigeria because of his sexual orientation, but he can't seem to keep straight the details of the alleged event(s). Is it dangerous to be publicly gay? In some locations and at some times, undoubtedly so. It is also dangerous in many European and North American settings to be public and verbal about being ex-gay. The entire concept of being ex-gay undermines the mantra of "they are born that way and it is immutable," and thereby seems to somehow threaten the very identity of being gay. Consequently, verbal and physical attacks have been visited on those who have had healing and restoration from God brought into their life. Those whose lives were disordered have been re-ordered, or if you will, re-oriented, into what is the intention of the Creator - thanks be to God.

This Sunday is a double Holy Day in the US: first the feast of Pentecost, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the church, accompanied by supernatural events. This is still happening in the churches where the members both believe and expect it. Secondly, it is Mother's Day in the United States, and anyone who hasn't sent Mom a card and some flowers is in trouble. And even if you have, phone Mom and thank her for all that she has done for you.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President & CEO of the AAC

Weekly AAC message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email [boldface mine]:

Dearly Beloved in Christ,

In North America, there is a continuing battle between the revisionist Primates and Bishops and those who are orthodox Christian Anglicans. We note with approval the visit of the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone, the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, to both Canada and the United States. In Fort Worth, ++Gregory met with clergy from that diocese and apparently discussed options available in view of the accelerating conflict with the Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. A Chinese military strategist from the 6th Century B.C., Sun Tzu, wrote that the most expensive information that you can acquire is outdated information. It is always prudent, when faced with a conflict, to have current and correct information about options. Jesus himself counseled his followers to be meek as doves [ed: hey, that should be innocent as doves], but wise as serpents. Obtaining accurate, current information is the wise course.

TEC Primate Schori was, of course, not pleased with Venables' visit, and complained loudly to the Southern Cone Primate in a letter. She urged him "not to bring further discord into the Episcopal Church." She did not, however, explain how she was herself working to diminish the discord, since she is one of the primary causes of it, with her DSH approach (Dewey, Suem & Howe). Bishop Iker of Forth Worth responded to her open letter with some great Texas straight talk: "You should know that under the canons this does not require either your approval or your support. You have no say in this matter. A diocesan bishop is free to invite other bishops to visit and speak in his diocese.....Once again, you are the one meddling in the internal affairs of this diocese, and I ask you to stop your unwelcome intrusions." Schori may have gotten away with telling Bishop Lee of Virginia that there is a new sheriff in town, but clearly in Fort Worth, Jack Iker is still in charge.

Journalist George Conger is reporting that there is a legal memorandum circulating in the American House of Bishops which concludes that sufficient legal grounds exist for presenting Schori for ecclesiastical trial on 11 counts of violating the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Could anything come of this? I don't think so. Remember the Bishop Walter Righter trial? Accused of knowingly ordaining a practicing homosexual, he went before a panel of judges (some of whom had already themselves done exactly the same thing - for example, Bishop Fred Borsch of Los Angeles), and as a panel of peers who shared his viewpoints, the judges decided that neither the doctrine nor the discipline of the Episcopal Church at that time prohibited the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual person living in a committed relationship. Trial over, Righter acquitted. There is no justice when the judges are as guilty as the defendant.

This brings us to the advisability of pushing for a trial of Schori; does it make a good faith statement to attempt to bring her to justice, or is it a counterproductive waste of effort? I hope that those contemplating bringing such a presentment would quietly and carefully weigh the gains and the losses from such an attempt, and try to anticipate the collateral effects as well. I don't think there is any chance in the Episcopal Church of getting a conviction, despite the apparent evidence that is in the public domain, for the same reason that, in my opinion, Walter Righter never got his just day in court. If Schori could be convicted, it would be a huge victory for the orthodox, but can anyone imagine the Episcopal junta letting the presentment get far enough to even get to an open trial?

In the bigger picture, I would rather see money and effort spent defending the Los Angeles area churches who are being sued by the Episcopal Diocese and TEC, or helping the Virginia churches who are being sued by the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and TEC for their property, or the churches in the northern Ohio area who are being sued, etc., etc. Favorable decisions in these areas would allow people to keep the churches they have paid for and maintained. Decisions in these areas might well set precedent in other states and dioceses and affect the scope and duration of other possible litigation.

Speaking of trials, several years ago the Methodist Conference of California and Nevada lost a judicial decision on property in California, which went all the way to the California Supreme Court. That decision awarded the property and assets to the local former Methodist Congregation. The Methodist denominational leaders were not happy with this, and now in Virginia the Methodists are back, asking to join the TEC/Diocese of Virginia suit against the departing Virginia Anglican congregations.

The Methodists haven't done everything wrong, however, since at their church's General Conference meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, the delegates voted to adhere to the church's position that marriage should not include same-sex unions and that homosexual acts are not compatible with Christian teaching. Now the question is, will they discipline those who willfully defy their church order?

The Presbyterians, perhaps from their Scottish ancestral thriftiness, are looking at negotiation instead of litigation for a departing congregation. The largest Presbyterian church in Northeast Ohio is offering a $550,000 buyout to its denomination so it can move to a more conservative church body. Unlike the Episcopal Diocese of Ohio, which is using the above-mentioned Dewey, Suem & Howe approach, the Presbytery of the Western Reserve is negotiating with Bay Presbyterian. Let us commend their efforts at a peaceful resolution.

North of the border in Canada, events are boiling. The Most Rev. Fred Hiltz tried to block ++Gregory Venables' visit to minister to Canadian Anglicans who have realigned with the Southern Cone. The Canadians, with two realigned Canadian Bishops, and many churches and clergy, are now under the Province of the Southern Cone. I'm not sure if you would call it "Southern Cone Norte"... but now that Province stretches from Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Circle.

In other Canadian news, the archbishop of Athabasca issued a letter confirming his diocese's commitment to the Canadian church and the Anglican Communion after its synod passed motions supporting churches that have left the Anglican Church of Canada and criticizing bishops who have gone to court over property issues. Now this is fairly amazing: the synod voted to give encouragement to those who have left the Canadian Anglican Church, and then the bishop has to give assurances to Primate Fred Hiltz that they are still loyal to the Canadian Anglican Church. It sounds like there is more going on here than appears in print. The letter was made public after the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada asked the archbishop to explain his synod's motions. One of the resolutions said that the synod, meeting in High Prairie on April 24 to 27, voted to "inform the parishes and the bishops who have joined the Anglican Network in Canada and the Province of the Southern Cone that we are in full communion with them."

Finally a note about GAFCON: The numbers of bishops signed up continues to grow. Additional rooms may have to be sought if all goes well.

Blessings and Peace in Jesus Christ,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson

From Bishop David Anderson, American Anglican Council, via email [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

The troubles in the American Episcopal (TEC) world continue unabated, like an aircraft that has gone into a death spiral and can't pull out. One of the major TEC seminaries, Seabury-Western, has given termination notices to its entire faculty. Although it was known that Seabury-Western was having financial difficulties, this announcement came as something of a surprise. Physically closing the doors and turning out the lights can't be too far away. Meanwhile the two orthodox Anglican/Episcopal seminaries, Nashotah House and Trinity, continue to prosper. Is it too much to say that the hand of God's blessing rests on those who teach and live the true Gospel of Jesus Christ?

TEC Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori snubbed the Pope, turning down an invitation in order to attend to second or third-level appointments. I'm afraid that she may miss the second coming, if only because it didn't get on her calendar far enough in advance, and she has "see me" appearances already scheduled in Florida or Utah.

Under the Schori public mantra, we are about at the end of the churches leaving - most of those so disposed to leave have done so. In fact, she is terribly out of touch with the real world; churches are leaving on a weekly basis. Now it is true that as long as one or two people don't leave with the rest of the parish, and the bishop can hold onto the name and the building (four walls and a janitor) then TEC will claim that they haven't lost the congregation. The truth is that a viable church has been lost to the diocese, and down the street in a school cafeteria or gymnasium a new orthodox Anglican Church has been formed with most of the former Episcopalians, now under the care of an overseas Anglican province. This week one of the churches departing TEC was Church of the Good Shepherd in Tomball, Texas. The building was left behind, but the congregation will move to a junior high school nearby for this Sunday. Pray for them on this first Sunday "out." It kind of gives "coming out" a new and more acceptable meaning than that to which we have been accustomed.

When the Pope spoke in New York and Presiding Bishop Schori was so very busy elsewhere, she had Bishop Mark Sisk stand in for her. Although the Pope's words were clearly applicable to TEC, Sisk claimed that the Pope's observations were "respectful of our legitimate disagreement." I read the remarks and I saw no such sentiment. The problem with using refined and diplomatic language when speaking to revisionist TEC bishops is that they will purposefully dodge the clear meaning.

We have read that the membership in the Anglican Church of Nigeria, using their highly successful 1+1+3 program, has increased in the last three years from 18 million 25 million. This growth has enabled the Province to tell the respective dioceses to stop sending assessments, as they are no longer needed, and to spend their resources on evangelism locally. The churches are encouraged to have fundraising projects, for which the members donate time, to assist in achieving financial independence. Additionally, the Province of Nigeria has been able to raise enough money internally to provide the means for the Nigerian bishops attend the GAFCON Jerusalem Pilgrimage.

If the Anglican Communion is supposed to have 77 million members, but of England's 25 million only 1.6 million can be found, and of TEC's 2.4 million only 1.6 can be found, then just between those two provinces 24.2 million needs to be subtracted from the 77 million. That leaves a number 52.8 as a more realistic number. If you add back in the new Nigerian increase of 7 million new members, that bumps the total up to 59.8 million. Of that number Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya total 40-45 million or between 66.9% and 75.2% of the Anglican Communion. Dr. Williams, are you listening? I imagine not, since he is more concerned with reinforcing Archbishop Fred Hiltz in his protests about Archbishop Gregory Venables visiting Canada without permission of the Anglican Church of Canada. These Archbishops, when they give up on the Gospel of Christ, first begin to explain things in such a fuzzy way you can't understand them... then as the disease of revisionism progresses they become clearer, but also more alarming in their heresy. When they lose the power of the Gospel, they grasp for the coercive power of Canon Law. They believe that they have an invisible but real spiritual "force field" around their boundary, and no uninvited prelate can come in.

All I can say, from Star Trek days, is "beam me up, Scotty!" Revisionist Anglicanism is so unlike real Anglicanism that they are in fact two different religions entirely, just with interchangeable vestments. They can't keep the Roman Catholic bishop out of their province, they can't keep the Eastern Orthodox bishop out of their province, and they certainly won't keep the orthodox Anglican bishops and archbishops from visiting their own flocks, no matter how many fictional boundaries they have to step on, across, or over. We wish Archbishop Greg a wonderful visit to his Canadian flocks.

Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson
President and CEO, The American Anglican Council